Intelligent Design: a Catechism

[uwot]

Since you haven't denied the possibility of ID, that leaves you with a theory that is possibly true, for which there couldn't possibly be evidence. As I say, I'll pass on that epistemology.

I wouldn't be so hasty. You asked what aspects of nature could suggest a designer, in my view. The answer remains nothing. Fairy rings are evidence of fairies, if you happen to believe fairies are a possibility. Arthur Conan Doyle famously did and took the photos a school girl made of herself with some cut out pictures of fairies as further evidence. Fairies remain a logical possibility, but whether you believe there is evidence for them depends on your credulity.
What you have if you judge something to resemble an artefact of undisputed manufacture, is just something that looks like it was designed by an intelligent agent. That's not the same thing as being evidence that it was designed, anymore than fairy rings are evidence of fairy design.
If fairies or designers are physical, the evidence for either is physical evidence. If they are metaphysical, by definition, there is no physical evidence for them and what you judge them to have done in our world is just your view.
As ArisingUK says: respect for defending your article.

[marjoramblues]

You are going around the houses to get back to where you started; why don't you just come clean.
You are looking for evidence to prove there is a God.

I find it offensive that you think it's appropriate to try to "bust" me by some kind of analysis of my motives.

First, by some kind of scientific trail; then by some other mode of reasoning.
How ridiculous.

That's barely an assertion, and not an argument.

And how far have you come from this 2001 article to the present, and your recenty published second edition...

If you want to know my personal opinions about God and any connection to ID, by all means ask me. Until then, I'll thank you to put a lid on the conjectures. When it comes to me, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

M: I can conjecture all I like, thank you very much. You are correct, I don't know you.

So far, all I know about you is:
1. your thoughts and arguments presented here, as a follow-up to a 2001 article.
2. from: http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-st ... -moody-phd
'...steeped in the Jesuit, Catholic tradition...'
3. your continuing interest in the God Debate; author of 'Does God Exist?' ( 2nd edition, 2013)
4. a quote from a reader's comment re 'Does God Exist?' (1996)
...And then goes beyond the actual arguments to the existential dimension of religion. Here is a quote at the very ending of the book I especially liked: "I think our free assent to God's existence is somehow important, maybe because it strengthens us in some way. It takes more determination and courage to believe in God than it does to believe in, say, the rings of Saturn."

There are scientific theories that have metaphysical implications that reach beyond what the science itself can establish. It's not ridiculous.

M: It looks like you have misunderstood my 'How ridiculous' which is my opinion, related to the complete enterprise undertaken by proponents of ID. I am not making an argument; it is my opinion based on, I suppose, my liking for simplicity and usefulness of time and energy spent

I frankly have no dog in the race. I don't have any theological or emotional investment in ID. I took an interest in it when Darwin's Black Box was first published, and have intermittently followed it since then. In terms of natural theology, the best it can offer is circumstantial evidence for a creator of some sort. But if ID turns out to be wrong, I'm perfectly okay with that.

M: No dog in the race, really? Whatever you say.
Hey, Todd, I think you are busted, and if you are offended by this, then that is too bad - and not my intention.
For my part, I have enjoyed the posts and the arguments.
Thanks for stepping out.
Congratulations on your second edition.

[Ginkgo]

If you want to know my personal opinions about God and any connection to ID, by all means ask me. Until then, I'll thank you to put a lid on the conjectures. When it comes to me, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

There are scientific theories that have metaphysical implications that reach beyond what the science itself can establish. It's not ridiculous.

I frankly have no dog in the race. I don't have any theological or emotional investment in ID. I took an interest in it when Darwin's Black Box was first published, and have intermittently followed it since then. In terms of natural theology, the best it can offer is circumstantial evidence for a creator of some sort. But if ID turns out to be wrong, I'm perfectly okay with that.

Yes, I agree. What was actually on the table for discussion was The credibility of ID as a science, not the credibility of the person presenting the argument. I would prefer to stick to the relevant arguments.

I have posted here in a little while because I am waiting for the arguments to return to the original topic. I am still keen to continue to show why ID isn't a science.

[tmoody]

M: I can conjecture all I like, thank you very much. You are correct, I don't know you.

So far, all I know about you is:
1. your thoughts and arguments presented here, as a follow-up to a 2001 article.
2. from: http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-st ... -moody-phd
'...steeped in the Jesuit, Catholic tradition...'
3. your continuing interest in the God Debate; author of 'Does God Exist?' ( 2nd edition, 2013)
4. a quote from a reader's comment re 'Does God Exist?' (1996)
...And then goes beyond the actual arguments to the existential dimension of religion. Here is a quote at the very ending of the book I especially liked: "I think our free assent to God's existence is somehow important, maybe because it strengthens us in some way. It takes more determination and courage to believe in God than it does to believe in, say, the rings of Saturn."

Then I guess I won't thank you to put a lid on the conjectures, since you prefer to continue to indulge in them. That you prefer this to actually asking me where I stand says much about you, but nothing at all about me. I have no idea why you think this a worthwhile pursuit.

M: No dog in the race, really? Whatever you say.
Hey, Todd, I think you are busted, and if you are offended by this, then that is too bad - and not my intention.
For my part, I have enjoyed the posts and the arguments.
Thanks for stepping out.
Congratulations on your second edition.

Yes, "no dog in the race" is exactly right. If you think you know otherwise, by all means make a case that rises beyond the level of disconnected remarks.

And thank you, on the second edition. I think it's a substantial improvement on the first.

[uwot]

What was actually on the table for discussion was The credibility of ID as a science, not the credibility of the person presenting the argument. I would prefer to stick to the relevant arguments.

Part of the problem I have with ID is that the question it asks, it seems to me, is not 'Is this designed by an intelligence?' But rather 'Does it look like it was designed by an intelligence?' To which I don't see that any objective measures apply, therefore the credibility of the people making the judgement matters.

[marjoramblues]

M: I can conjecture all I like, thank you very much. You are correct, I don't know you.

So far, all I know about you is:
1. your thoughts and arguments presented here, as a follow-up to a 2001 article.
2. from: http://www.sju.edu/about-sju/faculty-st ... -moody-phd
'...steeped in the Jesuit, Catholic tradition...'
3. your continuing interest in the God Debate; author of 'Does God Exist?' ( 2nd edition, 2013)
4. a quote from a reader's comment re 'Does God Exist?' (1996)
...And then goes beyond the actual arguments to the existential dimension of religion. Here is a quote at the very ending of the book I especially liked: "I think our free assent to God's existence is somehow important, maybe because it strengthens us in some way. It takes more determination and courage to believe in God than it does to believe in, say, the rings of Saturn."

Then I guess I won't thank you to put a lid on the conjectures, since you prefer to continue to indulge in them. That you prefer this to actually asking me where I stand says much about you, but nothing at all about me. I have no idea why you think this a worthwhile pursuit.

M: No dog in the race, really? Whatever you say.
Hey, Todd, I think you are busted, and if you are offended by this, then that is too bad - and not my intention.
For my part, I have enjoyed the posts and the arguments.
Thanks for stepping out.
Congratulations on your second edition.

Yes, "no dog in the race" is exactly right. If you think you know otherwise, by all means make a case that rises beyond the level of disconnected remarks.
And thank you, on the second edition. I think it's a substantial improvement on the first.

Sometimes things are worth pursuing simply because of a feeling of unease.
If I had wanted to 'make a case', I would have.
If you had wanted to clarify your position, declare your interest, then you would have.
Over to those with arguments.

[tmoody]

Since you haven't denied the possibility of ID, that leaves you with a theory that is possibly true, for which there couldn't possibly be evidence. As I say, I'll pass on that epistemology.

I wouldn't be so hasty. You asked what aspects of nature could suggest a designer, in my view. The answer remains nothing. Fairy rings are evidence of fairies, if you happen to believe fairies are a possibility. Arthur Conan Doyle famously did and took the photos a school girl made of herself with some cut out pictures of fairies as further evidence. Fairies remain a logical possibility, but whether you believe there is evidence for them depends on your credulity.

I asked two questions. One is whether ID is possibly true. So far, no one has answered in the negative. The second question is: Given that ID could be true, what would count as evidence for it. Your answer is nothing. You haven't offered any argument for that, and I don't yet see any good reason to accept it.

We do, in fact, have various criteria for detecting ID, which is precisely why SETI and archeology are scientific enterprises. Your position appears to be that we cannot apply those same criteria to biological entities. It's still not clear to me why not. You've said that even in the event of a positive SETI signal, the matter wouldn't be settled until we actually met the sender. I don't see why, and you offered no argument for this claim.

It seems clear to me that there are kinds of signals that SETI could discover that would be undisputably of intelligent origin, even if we remained forever ignorant of the sender. Moreover, a positive SETI signal would still count as evidence of ID even if not enough to settle the matter. Evidence doesn't have to settle questions; it only has to count for or against proposed answers.

What you have if you judge something to resemble an artefact of undisputed manufacture, is just something that looks like it was designed by an intelligent agent. That's not the same thing as being evidence that it was designed, anymore than fairy rings are evidence of fairy design.

I disagree. If something resembles things of undisputed manufacture, and the resemblance is specific to their causal history, i.e., the fact that they were manufactured, then that is evidence of design. It's not proof, of course, but we're being careful not to confuse evidence and proof. Proof is all-or-nothing; evidence is partial and has degrees.

The Antikythera mechanism resembles things of undisputed manufacture, even though its history and purpose are obscure and disputed. It resembles manufactured things in virtue of its form, which is one that unguided natural forces would not produce. That's evidence that it was designed. The discovery of a monolith on the Moon, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, would equally be evidence of design, due to its resemblance to manufactured things and its lack of resemblance to the typical productions of unguided natural forces.

If fairies or designers are physical, the evidence for either is physical evidence. If they are metaphysical, by definition, there is no physical evidence for them and what you judge them to have done in our world is just your view.
As ArisingUK says: respect for defending your article.

I'm not going to comment on fairies, because I don't know anything about what they're supposed to be. But the other part of your argument appears to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. That is, if designers are physical, evidence for them is physical; if they're not physical (I take it that's what you mean by "metaphysical") then evidence for them is not physical. But why should I accept that conclusion, especially since the argument is fallacious?

I see no reason why a non-physical designer can't leave physical evidence, as long as the non-physical designer is capable of causally interacting with physical things. If both physical and non-physical designers can leave the same kind of evidence, though, it follows that such evidence is not sufficient to determine whether the designer was physical or non-physical, which has been one of my points from the beginning. That's why ID can take you only as far as a bare inference to a designer, but no farther (or further).

I see you, and others, arguing something like this:

1. Science only studies physical beings and physical properties.
2. Science is capable of discerning physical evidence of design.
3. Therefore, any inference to a non-physical designer isn't science.
4. ID involves an inference to a non-physical designer.
5. Therefore, ID isn't science.

But I reject premise 4. That is, an inference to a non-physical designer is an additional inference drawn from a prior inference to a designer of unspecified nature.

As I see it, if there is evidence for design then any further inference must introduce metaphysical principles that go beyond what science can establish. For example, you might reason:

1. Structure X has properties strongly suggestive of design.
2. There are no non-physical designers.
3. There are, or were, no physical designers who could have designed X.
4. Therefore, despite the fact that X has properties strongly suggestive of design, it couldn't have been designed.
5. Therefore, X wasn't designed after all.

But premise 2 isn't a scientific claim; it's a metaphysical claim.

[QMan]

How about this:
A skeleton is found and is attributed to ... what ... an intelligent .......?
A pyramid is found and attributed to … what … an intelligent ........?
An eagle's nest is found and is attributed to … what?...an intelligent eagle?
A ground hog burrow is found and is attributed to … what?...an intelligent ground hog?
A termite mound is found and is attributed to … what?...an intelligent termite colony?
A snail's track is found and is attributed to … what? … an intelligent snail?
A mushroom is found and is attributed to … what?...an intelligent fungus?
An amoeba is found and is attributed to … what? … an intelligent protozoa?
A mold is found and is attributed to … what? … an intelligent bacteria?
A bacteria and virus is found and is attributed to … what … intelligent protein?
And so on …
Conclusion:
There's got to be an intelligent designer someplace?

[tmoody]

Part of the problem I have with ID is that the question it asks, it seems to me, is not 'Is this designed by an intelligence?' But rather 'Does it look like it was designed by an intelligence?' To which I don't see that any objective measures apply, therefore the credibility of the people making the judgement matters.

Mere resemblance would indeed be too vague to be of any use. This is why Behe's use of irreducible complexity, and Dembski's appropriation of Orgel's specified complexity are relevant.

Suppose you have a system of interacting parts, such that removal of any one renders the system not merely worse at whatever it does, but completely inoperative. Such a system exemplifies irreducible complexity. IC is evidence of design because of the very low probability of unguided natural forces putting the parts together in the "right" way, i.e., a way that results in function.

NeoDarwinism has an explanation for how complex functional systems can come to be assembled without design, but that explanation depends upon incremental steps, each of which is subject to selection pressures. That's fine, but in an IC system, there are no incremental prior stages that do anything, so no selection pressure.

One response is that the parts were previously doing other things, thus subject to other selection pressures, but available for "convergence" in a new functional system.

That's fine, but you have to show a plausible causal pathway for the convergence. That is, for this to count as a successful theory, it should be possible to specify a sequence of events of reasonable probability that would eventuate in the seemingly IC structure. If that can be done, then the claim that the structure was IC is falsified, since that claim is that there is no such pathway.

All of this falls within the scope of empirical science. It's objective and not mere unspecified resemblance.

[QMan]

Interesting. I think though that IC systems do not have to fail upon removal of a part if there is built in redundancy, as for critical mission computer systems, engines, and the human body.

These IC systems are typically converged from subassemblies (circuit boards, connectorization, etc.) which of course implies ID.

The difficulty is the human body, which is an IC system with huge (cellular) redundancy. The convergence of subassemblies to make up the body takes place with molecular and atomic level subassemblies. If that convergence is plausible, then according to your argument, the body is not an IC structure. But I think it is IC, simply with huge redundancy. If the body is an IC structure, then it follows by your argument that there is no plausible (probable) natural convergence process so that the body is assembled via ID processes

[Ginkgo]

I venture to say that another way of saying the above is that ID theorists want a partial science. In other words, they have the hypothesis based on induction and inference, but unfortunately they have no way of testing the hypothesis according to the scientific method. An intelligent designer in relation to living organisms is a a reasonable hypothesis, but again, it is not provable in any scientific way. There is no experiment we can conduct on living organisms to prove the hypothesis.

Certainly intelligent designers for human like structures (pyramids and the like) can be inferred from the evidence. We can certainly set up a scientific experiment in an attempt to discover the intelligent designers of the pyramids.I am not disagreeing with the argument that we may never know who the intelligent designers of pyramids or other structures.Yes, it is a valid argument. However, this is definitely not a licence to say that the same type of logic applies when it comes to not knowing who the intelligent agent was when it comes to living things.

It is for very good reasons that it doesn't work and I have out lined most of them in previous posts. It is for exactly these reasons that it isn't science. Partial science is not science. A hypothesis is fine but in order to be science you need to test it. If we never find out the intelligent designers of some structure,then that is just the way it is for the time being. We at least tried to put it to the scientific test.

Just to go back a few steps from where the discussion appears to be now. I think it is worth repeating my post because I have worked hard to get to the argument to this point. What I am actually saying is that ID is not a science because of the exact issues raised in my above post. In a very brief synopsis I want to say that ID has a very credible hypothesis that cannot be tested in any scientific way when it comes to living organisms. Does, this not represent end of argument as far as ID being a science?

What I also want to say is that I have not received a rebuttal of the points I have raised. So could someone deal with this so I can more on?

[tmoody]

I venture to say that another way of saying the above is that ID theorists want a partial science. In other words, they have the hypothesis based on induction and inference, but unfortunately they have no way of testing the hypothesis according to the scientific method. An intelligent designer in relation to living organisms is a a reasonable hypothesis, but again, it is not provable in any scientific way. There is no experiment we can conduct on living organisms to prove the hypothesis.

Certainly intelligent designers for human like structures (pyramids and the like) can be inferred from the evidence. We can certainly set up a scientific experiment in an attempt to discover the intelligent designers of the pyramids.I am not disagreeing with the argument that we may never know who the intelligent designers of pyramids or other structures.Yes, it is a valid argument. However, this is definitely not a licence to say that the same type of logic applies when it comes to not knowing who the intelligent agent was when it comes to living things.

It is for very good reasons that it doesn't work and I have out lined most of them in previous posts. It is for exactly these reasons that it isn't science. Partial science is not science. A hypothesis is fine but in order to be science you need to test it. If we never find out the intelligent designers of some structure,then that is just the way it is for the time being. We at least tried to put it to the scientific test.

Just to go back a few steps from where the discussion appears to be now. I think it is worth repeating my post because I have worked hard to get to the argument to this point. What I am actually saying is that ID is not a science because of the exact issues raised in my above post. In a very brief synopsis I want to say that ID has a very credible hypothesis that cannot be tested in any scientific way when it comes to living organisms. Does, this not represent end of argument as far as ID being a science?

What I also want to say is that I have not received a rebuttal of the points I have raised. So could someone deal with this so I can more on?

Suppose facts A, B, and C are said to be evidence for claim P. If I understand you, you're claiming that in order for A, B, and C to count as scientific evidence, there must be some independent way of testing P. Is that correct?

So, for example, if we find pyramids constructed of rectangular blocks on Mars, this would only count as scientific evidence for design if we can somehow test the hypothesis in some other way. Similarly, a sophisticated SETI signal would only count as scientific evidence for intelligence if we could encounter the author of the signal in some other way.

I don't see any reason to accept this as a boundary of what counts as science. It seems to me that what makes the pyramid and SETI cases examples of scientific inference is the fact that there is a principled way of defeating those inferences. If it can be shown that unguided natural causes could have produced either phenomenon, all warrant for a design inference is removed.

There are many theories in the historical sciences that may never be susceptible to independent testing. For example, did the Neanderthal have language? We may find evidence that they did. Some have argued that the fact that they ritualistically buried their dead is such evidence. Nevertheless, there may never be any independent way to test the hypothesis. I don't see why that makes the initial hypothesis unscientific.

[QMan]

Ginkgo wrote:
I venture to say that another way of saying the above is that ID theorists want a partial science. In other words, they have the hypothesis based on induction and inference, but unfortunately they have no way of testing the hypothesis according to the scientific method. An intelligent designer in relation to living organisms is a a reasonable hypothesis, but again, it is not provable in any scientific way. There is no experiment we can conduct on living organisms to prove the hypothesis

My input:
Since there have definitely been well recorded medical miracles in modern times (i.e., instantaneous healings beyond our current medical abilities) would you consider those to contribute towards increasing the probability that an ID could be plausible? Clearly there can not be 100% certainty.

[uwot]

We do, in fact, have various criteria for detecting ID, which is precisely why SETI and archeology are scientific enterprises.

As you are using induction to argue evidence of design, the only thing you can assign intelligent design to is things that you have built you inductive reasoning from. To my understanding, that currently, incontrovertibly, means biological brains. If all you are claiming is that things that look like they are designed, are possibly designed by creatures that have essentially the same mechanism as the things we have experience of designing things, to wit, physical creatures with brains, I don't think anyone who has so far contributed would disagree. So, there may be aliens, with brains, 'out there' and there is no shortage of dead people who used to have them.

Your position appears to be that we cannot apply those same criteria to biological entities. It's still not clear to me why not.

For the simple reason that we have no examples of intelligences designing biological entities to make an inductive case.

The Antikythera mechanism resembles things of undisputed manufacture, even though its history and purpose are obscure and disputed. It resembles manufactured things in virtue of its form, which is one that unguided natural forces would not produce. That's evidence that it was designed.

Indeed. Almost certainly by an example of the type of designers we are familiar with. It's unlikely, but possibly with alien help...

The discovery of a monolith on the Moon, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, would equally be evidence of design, due to its resemblance to manufactured things and its lack of resemblance to the typical productions of unguided natural forces.

Granted. It would be entirely reasonable to conjecture that there is another species capable of manufacturing artifacts in a way that resembles our capability, but we would have to marvel at their ability to leave no other trace.

If fairies or designers are physical, the evidence for either is physical evidence. If they are metaphysical, by definition, there is no physical evidence for them and what you judge them to have done in our world is just your view.

I'm not going to comment on fairies, because I don't know anything about what they're supposed to be.

They are a candidate for 'designer'.

But the other part of your argument appears to commit the fallacy of denying the antecedent. That is, if designers are physical, evidence for them is physical; if they're not physical (I take it that's what you mean by "metaphysical") then evidence for them is not physical. But why should I accept that conclusion, especially since the argument is fallacious?

It's not denying the antecedent. If you accept that fairy rings are evidence of fairies, then yes, there is physical evidence for fairies. However, if you argue that fairies are invisible and, in fact, can avoid detection by any physical means, there is no direct physical evidence for fairies, even in principle.
As for metaphysical, there are phenomena and although most people take it for granted, the belief that the world is 'physical' is itself a metaphysical position as it goes beyond what you can prove. It is phenomena that physical sciences study. To be metaphysical is to beyond any phenomenal interaction with what we describe as reality. The fact is that any such metaphysical hypothesis, including 'There is a real world, made of actual stuff', is not the sort of thing scientists dirty their hands with; when they do, they are doing philosophy. The problem is that any metaphysical hypothesis is as valid as any other and just as useless scientifically.
Leaving aside archaeological claims, if you are claiming that there is evidence for something we currently lack the means to detect, aliens for example, I think you can justifiably claim to be making a scientific claim. If, however, you think that can be extended to claims about entities there is no way to perceive directly, you are making a claim that science cannot respond to.

I see no reason why a non-physical designer can't leave physical evidence, as long as the non-physical designer is capable of causally interacting with physical things.

But without offering an explanation for how non-physical interacts with physical, you are relying on magic.

If both physical and non-physical designers can leave the same kind of evidence, though, it follows that such evidence is not sufficient to determine whether the designer was physical or non-physical, which has been one of my points from the beginning. That's why ID can take you only as far as a bare inference to a designer, but no farther (or further).

If you are talking about SETI or archaeology, fair enough, but they do not support any inference to a non-physical designer.

IC is evidence of design because of the very low probability of unguided natural forces putting the parts together in the "right" way, i.e., a way that results in function.
NeoDarwinism has an explanation for how complex functional systems can come to be assembled without design, but that explanation depends upon incremental steps, each of which is subject to selection pressures. That's fine, but in an IC system, there are no incremental prior stages that do anything, so no selection pressure.

One response is that the parts were previously doing other things, thus subject to other selection pressures, but available for "convergence" in a new functional system.

That's fine, but you have to show a plausible causal pathway for the convergence. That is, for this to count as a successful theory, it should be possible to specify a sequence of events of reasonable probability that would eventuate in the seemingly IC structure. If that can be done, then the claim that the structure was IC is falsified, since that claim is that there is no such pathway.

That's essentially the same argument that creationists use against evolution. The fact that there isn't a complete 'fossil record' doesn't falsify the theory. If you are referring to bacterial flagellum; at the microscopic level biological entities are dividing, mutating, invading and devouring on a breathtaking scale. That something remarkable happens in such an arena, isn't so remarkable given the numbers. There is no reason to eliminate chance from any such development, to do so is a personal rather than scientific judgement.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo wrote:
I venture to say that another way of saying the above is that ID theorists want a partial science. In other words, they have the hypothesis based on induction and inference, but unfortunately they have no way of testing the hypothesis according to the scientific method. An intelligent designer in relation to living organisms is a a reasonable hypothesis, but again, it is not provable in any scientific way. There is no experiment we can conduct on living organisms to prove the hypothesis

My input:
Since there have definitely been well recorded medical miracles in modern times (i.e., instantaneous healings beyond our current medical abilities) would you consider those to contribute towards increasing the probability that an ID could be plausible? Clearly there can not be 100% certainty.

An interesting question. I would say that such occurrences do happen and there are times when science cannot provide the explanation. When this type of thing happens I see it as arguments for physicalism being false. I also see such scientifically unexplainable occurrences as being of the same category as quantum mechanics also providing evidence for physicalism is false.

If it is the case we are saying that we have provided evidence that someones position is false. Miracle cures have happened and science cannot explain how this has comes about. Unfortunately, we cannot claim that our alternative position (ID theory) therefore must be true, or evidence towards out theory being true. The reality is that both theories could be wrong.